W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:18:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxGyfJb=q9GUE2T+Wmx8Ok_OLm9meaoGFTcwG8EPj9XBvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
-1.
I do NOT agree that we have consensus.

Whether ir not something has been discussed before or not is not the point.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 12, 2016 9:54 AM, "Joshue O Connor" <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I think we did reach a place where the majority of the group members,  at
> least on the call, could live with us signaling a more regular update
> cycle.
>
> The question is what form that would take.  The balance seems to be
> signalling intent to have a three year cycle, but not necessarily
> committing to it.  We can review our status at those times,  and release
> new SCs etc if we feel it is appropriate at that time.
>
> That seems to be the most reasonable way to work it. I'm also exercising
> some faith and goodwill towards the work of the Silver team, that after 2.1
> is live,  we will be well into the FPWD of Silver.
>
> If this is the case and the work is substantial and taking real shape then
> the efforts/energy of the group will go fully behind Silver. Otherwise
> maintaining a more regular dot.x release cycle is a practical alternative
> to allow us to keep WCAG a vibrant relevant standard.
>
> Can you live with this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
> Sent from TypeApp <http://www.typeapp.com/r>
>
> On 12 Oct 2016, at 02:59, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Ohhh... that's why.
>>
>> I'm looking at section 3.1 Normative Specifications
>>
>> It doesn't look like my concern was addressed, bec ause we have a
>> section called "normative specifications" in which we say we will do
>> "regular updates" which means we have adopted a different model from WCAG 2
>> which was was released when it was complete (rather than on a time) and had
>> widespread approval. So it seems like it has been decided that we will ship
>> on a schedule rather than when the spec is ready. Does that not worry
>> anyone else? I was hoping we could come to consensus about whether we were
>> actually going to ship on a set schedule.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not sure what to tell you - I just followed the link and see the
>>> following: [image: image1.PNG]
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:57 PM, David MacDonald < david100@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I
>>> ​'ve looked on 3 computers and I keep seeing the version​
>>> ​ with the following
>>>  sentence
>>>
>>> "The Working Group intends to produce regular updates for WCAG
>>> guidelines, starting with WCAG 2.1. The public schedule for the updates is
>>> documented in the AG WG Project Management Plan."
>>>
>>> ​I believe the consensus changed that sentence.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David MacDonald
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>>
>>> LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>>
>>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>
>>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>>
>>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>>
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PS the link to the minutes seems to go to the AUG 23 meeting??
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David MacDonald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>>>
>>>> LinkedIn
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>>>
>>>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>>
>>>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>>>
>>>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>>>
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>>>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:13 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ​This seems to be the same document that we had going into the
>>>>> call...
>>>>>
>>>>>   http://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter
>>>>>
>>>>> is there a version with the amended text that we came to consensus to,
>>>>> on the call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> David MacDonald
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>>>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>>>>
>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>>>>
>>>>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>>>>
>>>>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>>>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy
>>>>> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <
>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday October 13 at 1:00pm Boston time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a CfC seeking WG approval to release the current draft
>>>>>> charter for AC review.   The item was surveyed, discussed on the WG
>>>>>> call, and approved ( http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-w
>>>>>> ai-wcag-minutes.html
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2016/08/23-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03> ). There
>>>>>> was much discussion leading up to the call, and on the call, and the group
>>>>>> felt that a consensus opinion was reached on key items.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Draft charter:  http://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have
>>>>>> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
>>>>>> being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before
>>>>>> the CfC deadline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> AWK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>>>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>>>>> Adobe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 08:18:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC